Not my first or second choice for sure. I think those saying Quebec City is a nostaligc pick, but would fail and struggle, not much business sense there.
NHL to Atlanta odds just increased significantly
- Thread starter FlyguyOX
- Start date
- Status
Absolute clown show if they expand the league again. 32 was such a good number of teams. And they have several teams up for relocation.
Is there more business sense in having ice hockey in a desert?
MoneyManny
Registered User
- Jun 28, 2021
- 850
- 1,283
What's up with all these big companies trying reaaaaallly hard to sell their products to anyone BUT their target demographics and failing miserably these days? I know what they're trying to do but shouldn't they wait until their OTHER money sink impossible project (Arizona) shows some signs of life before their next expedition into unknown terrotory?
A quick glance at Atlanta's demographics tell me this project is a massive uphill battle from the start.
Fast forward to 2027: Please welcome the Baltimore Barksdales to the NHL!
A quick glance at Atlanta's demographics tell me this project is a massive uphill battle from the start.
Fast forward to 2027: Please welcome the Baltimore Barksdales to the NHL!
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
Arizona will be settled one way or another by the summer.
And being outside the "BoH bubble" is probably a good thing.
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
- Oct 9, 2012
- 31,775
- 30,491
You’ll never see a second team in Vancouver or the surrounding area
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
Built a new arena at public expense.
When time came for the proposed ownership group to pony up the expansion fee they folded.
Fans support is definitely there, but NHL seems to think QC doesn't have the corporate support.
And what about the amount of people doing ice hockey, or being fans of it?
Surely you realize that the population is not what's relevant here? By that logic, you could make bank by starting an ice hockey league in India. A whopping billion people, woohoo.
- Oct 9, 2012
- 31,775
- 30,491
Quebec is a pipe dream, unless the team has immediate success like Vegas. I don’t see it being a sustainable market
Canada is already tapped out for markets. The sad thing is you could drop Winnipeg/Ottawa and most people wouldn’t even flinch.
ItWasJustified
Registered User
- Jan 1, 2015
- 4,570
- 5,769
Basic math? Let me tell you about basic math:
Canadian hockey fans: 30+ million
American hockey fans: 8+ million
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
Check. Arizona won't have a third of their current roster there next season.
(but odds are they aren't moving)
Check. Atlanta and Salt Lake City working on it.
So.... you agree Arizona is staying now....
This is the NHL..... not Pokemon or Magic: The Gathering.
My home town Tampere of 200k people has 2 ice hockey teams and both perform as top 4 teams in Finland.
Pretty sure Toronto of 4 million people is not tapped out by having only one team. If 200k people in Tampere make for 12.7k person sellout arenas(with demand for more), then assuming fans in Toronto like ice hockey as much as people in Tampere, that makes for potential 250k seats sold, when Leafs arena is only 18.8k.
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
I think they would pack the place for years 1-4 for regardless of the team.
But as I pointed out the NHL doesn't think there's enough corporate support there.
TheLegend
Hardly Deactivated
Here's some business math.
Canada is tapped out and not growing.
US market is relatively untapped and offers massive growth potential.
- Oct 9, 2012
- 31,775
- 30,491
Oh? Why not?
I'd say that Toronto can actually support around 10 NHL teams. Or is Tampere that much more of a hockey town than Toronto? Maybe I should start referring to Tampere as the mecca of hockey.
So imagine 10 teams in Toronto, full sellout arenas. Lots of local rivalries.
Now compare that to 10 random teams in USA in markets where no one cares about hockey, such as Arizona and Atlanta. How is that the superior decision?
ricky0034
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2010
- 15,359
- 7,754
In terms of ice hockey? Doubtful.
They could if the ticket prices were the same as they are for teams such as Anaheim Ducks.
Unfortunately, while Charlotte got the Hornets name back, we are left with one of the two most confusing names in the NBA because the original New Orleans team plays in Utah.
- Oct 9, 2012
- 31,775
- 30,491
You can’t compare the Finnish league with the NHL
Salary is different, arenas are different, corporate sponsorships are different. You need substantially more overhead to run a team in Canada. Players in the top Finnish leagues make close to what the top players in the AHL make
Arizona and Atlanta are untapped markets where you can grow a brand without fighting an existing brand that’s worked for a long time.
ricky0034
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2010
- 15,359
- 7,754
and i'd probably go to a Tennis game if someone gave me free tickets
does that make me a Tennis fan?
Winnipeg is one of the best teams in the league and still can't sell out the leagues smallest non college arena
Wry n Ginger
Water which is too pure has no fish
yeah, keep the magic for glowing pucks, floating dasher adds, competitions involving surfboards and chrome lids. NHL would never stoop to pagentry gimmicks .
Your right
This I can agree with., But there's a caveat. Usa is untapped, but if you are going to expand and hope for success, do you try to target a region that's failed in 2 different generations, or do you try for a new one?
The game has grown alot since the days of gretzky going to LA, but it hasn't worked in many areas, which leaves the highest earning markets, which are majority Canadian, to cover the differences in profit share.
So I'd say while it's fine to target atl again, I don't feel they should get a heads up over ones that haven't had the opportunity or ones guaranteed to thrive.
Adding say a Quebec, that's printing money, which would be added to the support of the financially unstable like Arizona. Then u could add a Houston or etc. If the Utah owner really has a hard on there, I'd rather go there first, at least give them the shot.
If this happens, it really just feels like one man's mission (Bettmans) to push a square peg into a circular hole, and make his decisions work instead of admitting mb it's not the right time.
Rest of league owners, majority don't gaf where it is, cuz they all share a take of the expansion fees, which will be same for whoever comes in, which if based on the past 2, this one will be probably 800 to just a shy under a billion dollars
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 26,971
- 12,136
I feel like, from my understanding of "The Gathering" project at least, it's the sort of thing that could still conceivable end up going forward with popular support, even without that Arena and NHL tenant at all.
This is probably a good sign that they've got some confirmation that it's something with a high degree of likelihood....but from the plans i've seen, the Arena itself is kind of just tacked on to a proposed dense, walkable little community off the highway. With a whole bunch of Residential towers and mixed use stuff, commercial and retail and public space to support it. So depending on how they'd choose to phase the development, they could very easily just start with the residential/mixed-use community...and then either plunk in the arena if it happens, or find some other sort of use for the space if it doesn't materialize.
It may have started with the idea of the Arena being an "anchor" for the community, but it seems like the project independent of the Arena has gained a lot of momentum anyway. It's becoming a fairly popular development model in a lot of places that are realizing suburban sprawl is a pretty wretched problem and major financial burden, but these sort of high density projects are an absolute cash cow in terms of tax dollars per area, and extremely "environmentally friendly" green patterns of development in general. More typically attached to some sort of significant transit option (rail, light rail, etc.) but there are other ways to make that work.
It sounds like it's still just a non-binding MOU? Which probably prioritizes moving forward with the other development first. Leaving the Arena funding contingent on landing a franchise?
This is probably a good sign that they've got some confirmation that it's something with a high degree of likelihood....but from the plans i've seen, the Arena itself is kind of just tacked on to a proposed dense, walkable little community off the highway. With a whole bunch of Residential towers and mixed use stuff, commercial and retail and public space to support it. So depending on how they'd choose to phase the development, they could very easily just start with the residential/mixed-use community...and then either plunk in the arena if it happens, or find some other sort of use for the space if it doesn't materialize.
It may have started with the idea of the Arena being an "anchor" for the community, but it seems like the project independent of the Arena has gained a lot of momentum anyway. It's becoming a fairly popular development model in a lot of places that are realizing suburban sprawl is a pretty wretched problem and major financial burden, but these sort of high density projects are an absolute cash cow in terms of tax dollars per area, and extremely "environmentally friendly" green patterns of development in general. More typically attached to some sort of significant transit option (rail, light rail, etc.) but there are other ways to make that work.
It sounds like it's still just a non-binding MOU? Which probably prioritizes moving forward with the other development first. Leaving the Arena funding contingent on landing a franchise?
- Status
